Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

The Trudeau rule

There is no higher compliment in professional basketball than being the cause of a rule change, so Justin Trudeau should perhaps be chuffed today that the NDP wants to ban “parliamentarians from double-dipping by banning payment for work that is part of their job as an MP or Senator.” For instance, public speaking.

Filed under:

Advertisement

Advertisement

Post navigation

The Trudeau rule

Yes, Justin Trudeau should be very proud of the fact that a rule needs to be implemented to ensure MP’s use common sense, because he was incapable of doing so. I’m sure his mother would be quite proud!

In all fairness to Justin Trudeau, he did grow up accustomed to a very influential, privileged lifestyle and it must have been difficult to realize that he would not be able to live the way he was used to on the salary he was going to paid as an MP. He was a sought after public speaker and the money was easily available and he did get the okay from the Ethics Commissioner. In hindsight, had he known he was going to run for Prime Minister of the country, he likely would have made a different choice but perhaps that was not on his radar initially.

Good question. Are political parties considered “non-profit organizations?” because there is no doubt that MP’s will still be allowed to do public speaking for free and raise money for non-profit organizations. MP’s, however, won’t be allowed to make (personal) money doing public-speaking which is part of their job description as an MP.

You know that’s really ridiculous. Do you really think a charity will want big D or chsrlie Angus to come speak for them at a fundraiser as someone with the profile of Trudeau ? Should he then feel obliged, compelled even to speak. The NDP are full or it.

I am sorry…what is ridiculous and who is “big D?”
Do you doubt that military hero Romeo Dallaire, hockey legend Ken Dryden and our own astronaut MP, Mark Garneau get asked to speak at charitable fundraisers? My guess is they do. These people actually accomplished something. Justin Trudeau was the child of famous parents and THAT was his accomplishment and why he was a popular public speaker. As for whether MPs should feel ‘obliged’ to speak at charitable fundraisers, that would be at their discretion. Should MPs be making money off of speaking at charitable fundraisers when they are supposed to be at work in the HOC, probably not. If I ditched work to sell pharmaceutical products, I would be fired.

Romeo and Ken and could charge between $5000 and $10,000Garneau Gets 10,000. per speech right now, if they hit the circuit. JT can command $20,000. I spent more than a decade as a charity fundraiser. Guess who I’d pick?

If you’re arguing that it’s unfair that celebrities get paid better than scientists and soldiers, you’re free to take it up with the Canadian public.

MostlyCivil on October 11, 2013 at 7:53 am

Say what??? Who cares what who can charge? The question was whether an MP can still speak at a fundraiser for free. Some MPs will still be asked to speak at fundraisers for free. Justin Trudeau as leader of his party NO LONGER is speaking at fundraisers so this whole point of yours is moot. I have no argument about what a “celebrity” MP who works a fundraiser gets paid. I don’t care. Should they be taking time off of their job at the House of Commons to make extra money on the side, probably not. It is not ethical. Yes, charitable work is good but only if you do it for free. During the flood, many nurses were doing volunteer work with the flood crisis. They weren’t paid extra because they were paid to do their regular job and were sent out by their employer (after the nurses volunteered to go). Had they taken extra pay while on the employer payroll, they would have been fired.

$10169209 on October 11, 2013 at 11:38 am

And, you’ve missed the point I was making about how you were equating social worth with popularity as a speaker. Might want to clear that partisan blockage in your frontal lobe.

MostlyCivil on October 15, 2013 at 8:59 am

That’s a great point. How will they be able to do anything about lawyers who still profit from their practices even while serving as MP, or entrepreneurs whose companies still run and make money while serving as MP. What about physicians like Kellie Lietch, who still practice — I think she says she does not charge but perhaps her practice bills OHIP. Real estate agents — even if not selling homes still make revenues from their company’s sales. And lest we forget — what about profits from writing books or feature articles? I kind of think the NDP are full of it on this one — just hoping to get a headline or two. But when Trudeau is in the headline, nobody talks about the NDP.

And most of all: why aren’t charities allowed to decide who they think will best address their audiences and raise the most money for them — and hire them?

This post made me think, because I figured there’d have to be a distinction made between certain types of lawyering and writing, where some would be allowed and some would not. Then I realized you’d pretty much have to make the same distinctions for “making speeches”, and that Trudeau would probably then STILL fall on the side of the good on the issue.

Since there was not fault in this case, I found none. When there is fault, I will point it out.

GFMD on October 10, 2013 at 8:22 pm

Really! Do you realize that if this new rule will be implemented, it will only apply to Justin Trudeau since NO other MP has done the speech-giving-for-fees while being on an MP salary.

Francien Verhoeven on October 11, 2013 at 10:30 am

The wording suggests that it would only apply to taking payment for something that falls under duties of an MP – so most of your examples wouldn’t be relevant. Honestly, i think disclosure of outside sources of income should be enough and let the voters decide who crossed the line.

If by “relapse” you mean return, then I’m in fear too. Because if she misses this one, written by her nemesis Aaron Wherry, after bleating on this very topic ad nauseum, well, I guess irony is named … shhh, it’s like Beetlejuice: don’t say it aloud!

Forgetting about Trudeau, it seems to me that payment for speeches makes it a little too easy to
1) skirt around financial contribution rules, and

2) buy political influence

Big Business wants a favour? It pays a cabinet minister a bucket load of money to give a powder puff speech so that said minister will go to bat for them. Ditto for Big Labour. Doesn’t necessarily have to be a cabinet minister, just someone who may be in a position to return the favour in the not too distant future.

In some cases it may be possible to objectively judge the value of a speech, but I’d hazard that in a lot of cases that’s not possible. And if it’s not possible to objectively judge the value of a speech, it becomes very difficult to judge the legitimacy of the payment.

The US is in an unfortunate situation in which big money does seem to buy politicians. Canada does not have that problem (at least for the most part). However, paying MPs for speeches does seem like it leaves the door open at least somewhat for this kind of abuse.

it seems to me that payment for speeches makes it a little too easy to
1) skirt around financial contribution rules, and
2) buy political influence

The second maybe, but not the first. There’s a limit to how much a candidate can contribute to their own campaign too. Giving money directly to an MP wouldn’t provide for a way for said MP to use those funds for a campaign, as they’re limited as to how much of their own money they can use, I believe.

Well, it’s a good thing the NDP and not the CPC is proposing this new rule. If the CPC would have proposed such a rule, the media would have attacked the CPC for it. At least now that the NDP proposes the rule, it will be about the rule, not about the party who proposed it.

The fact that trudeau’s profile is more due to good fortune than merit is irrelevant. I’m just pointing out the NDP seem to be proposing a rule designed to politically embarrass JT.
Sure, leave it to the discretion of the individual. But JT seems to have been in a unique category. He was in demand, at least partially because he was uniquely placed to raise money for the charity in question. I see no reason to penalize him for that. Making it a personal decision of members outside of their riding seems perfectly fine. But you realize you may be limiting their capacity to raise funds.
Agreed no member should take time to do anything personally lucrative before the duty to be in the House ( I wonder how many NDP hypocrites missed time to attend to the family business?) but I couldn’t support a rule obliging mps to attend fundraisers on demand.

Oh no, I think you misunderstood me. I said, they would never stop MPs from speaking at charitable fundraisers (for free). I certainly NEVER said they would FORCE MPs to speak at charitable fundraisers. I believe though that Mark Garneau spoke a lot for free and I bet Romeo Dallaire did too. They would be popular as would Ken Dryden. Justin Trudeau is popular among a certain age demographic but those other guys are as well.

It seems to me that the very challenging part of this proposal that makes it, in my mind, unreaslistic to implement, is that to ban payment for work that is part of an MP’s job, one must first exhaustively list the duties an MP must do.
Does a job description for a Member of Parliament exist? Can one realistically think one can be created that is an exhaustive list of what an MP truly does?
As an aside, it strikes me (and this is reflected in other comments) that if one is to ban payment for speeches made to the profit of the individual, one must also ban payment for speeches paid to the profit of the party. Good luck with that.

Duffy is also in trouble for speaking at party events while claiming senate time. People with common sense (which Duffy doesn’t have!) understand that double dipping is wrong.

What Trudeau did was double dipping. He did not show up at the House to deliver speeches on issues at hand but instead skipped the House to then go give speeches somewhere else for a fee. NO other MP has done so. Only Trudeau has done so.

May I also point out, that when three MP’s gave speeches at a union gathering, that it was only Trudeau who charged a fee for his speech, while the other two MP’s at the same event, did NOT charge a fee for giving their speeches.

Duffy’s double dipping in connection with speeches consisted of claiming travel expenses from the Senate for giving those speeches,where those expenses were already being paid by the organizations that asked him to speak.

Your example makes it sound like you think they have a punch clock over there; I could just see it now, Duffy calling Pam: “Hey Pam, could you punch my card for me? But just do it when no-one’s watching, OK?”

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.